It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:38 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
joe wrote:
Quasar wrote:
joe wrote:
So we have two types of gravity?

You mean local, solar system and Galaxtican?

No, I mean Einstein's conventional, and largely accepted, warped spacetime model that you employed just now and the alternative "moving forward into the future" kind of gravity that you are trying to get us to accept.

you wrote:
Gravity is simply the Earth moving in a direction you cannot see but you can definately feel it.

Which is it? How exactly does the Earth hold on to its atmosphere?

Hi Joe
Firstly I dont want anyone to except anything. This is pure mind exercise and it may be either right or wrong. This is an idea - nothing else.
Ok I will attemp to answer: The Earth holds on to its atmosphere because of the excepted density theory. The nitrogen, oxygen and other trace elements that make up the atmosphere are not dense enough for the gravity to pull to the centre.
The Earth's mass or rest mass as it is known, is nowhere near at rest. It is on the move constantly. This movement you cannot see but you can feel as it moves into the future. The Earth wants you personally to move into the future with it, if you are near enough to the hole it makes in spacetime then you will gladly go along. Einstein stated that all matter moves forward in spacetime. I have always wondered if there is a secondary effect of this and can we see it. I believe therefore there is a possibility that the effect of the Earth carving an hole through spacetime
is gravity. If you jump up and down on the Earth you are resisting the Earths will to do something opposite and the Earth will come and catch you in mid air and take you through that big hole it made for itself in spacetime.
Now I can see where this is going because your gonna get me on that time machine argument now arn't ya :lol: :lol: :lol:
Because technically speaking if I jump in the air and resist time, then no one would be able to see me!!!!
Hehe. Lifes a laugh innit. :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Posts: 749
Location: Plymouth
Quasar wrote:
The Earth wants you personally to move into the future with it, if you are near enough to the hole it makes in spacetime then you will gladly go along.
-------
If you jump up and down on the Earth you are resisting the Earths will to do something opposite and the Earth will come and catch you in mid air and take you through that big hole it made for itself in spacetime.

So imagine you escaped Earths gravity completely. A manned mission to Mars for instance (I know technically Earths gravity influences the whole of space but in such negligible amounts as to be ignored).
After leaving the Earths gravity and before reaching that of Mars, is time standing still for the astronaut? So for him the spaceflight will pass in the blink of an eye?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Point taken. :roll:


Last edited by Quasar on Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
Quasar wrote:
How the hell did this guy (Ruud) come up with a theory that contradicts so much of modern thinking?


In answering his own question, Quasar also wrote:
In physics, he does not know a great deal and I have had to explain all of Newton's laws, Einsteins principles, Maxwells stuff, Quantum mechanics, Hubbles stuff, Hawking's stuff and just about the whole of Physics

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Maybe I do not know all about physics. But the animation I made should still make some sence. What I would like to ask you then is to tell me what is wrong with my animation?

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kff8EBJ3Qo

My question would be...

What is the defention of time, and what do you think what is the 4th dimension?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
rudolfhendriques wrote:
What I would like to ask you then is to tell me what is wrong with my animation?

It's mere speculation.

The whole field of physics is based on observation, testing and prediction. Einstein's theories have been tested to the nth degree. His theory, and animations of it, can be used to observe, test and make predictions about what will happen in the future. Can yours?

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
joe wrote:
rudolfhendriques wrote:
What I would like to ask you then is to tell me what is wrong with my animation?

It's mere speculation.

The whole field of physics is based on observation, testing and prediction. Einstein's theories have been tested to the nth degree. His theory, and animations of it, can be used to observe, test and make predictions about what will happen in the future. Can yours?



Hey Joe, I think it is possible to use my model for a lot of experiments aswell. We even can use the existing models of Einstein, for example we can take the formula E=mc2..


c2 = velocity of light2. In my opinion c2 should be seen as the velocity of matter. So c2 still would be 300.000km2/sec2. I see a much more clear relation between the velocity of matter and his energy instead of the velocity of light and matter.


How can light be related with the energy of mass if they are 2 different "things"?

Try to see it tike this..


If the velocity of light in matter goes down, what happens then with the energy of that matter?

Which velocity of light do you need to use to calculate the energy of matter. We all know that the velocity of light has some "fluctations" all depending of the kind of matter it goes trough.

An other question I would like to make..


Do photon's really traver trough matter or is this travel trough matter a kind of "ballgame" where photons are absorb't and released by electron's.

Does light really travels trough matter orr do we just see a copy of an photon?

The way I see it I guess that a photon get's lost when it hits mass, then it depends of the structure of matter to see whitch radiation will be released on the other site of the matter.

Like a piece of glas or iron, they both let radiation go trough. It's not always the visible light what goes trough.

GrtZ Ruud


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:41 pm
Posts: 1450
Location: 55° 57'N: 03° 08'W
"So c2 still would be 300.000km2/sec2."

I think c2 would be 90,000,000,000 km2/sec2.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Manchester
Dear Rudd
Your query\suggestion of the ball game looks very much like the simplistic explanation often used to help us ordinary amateur astronomers understand spectroscopy. It is just a basic explanation not to be taken too literally, insomuch as it may only have vague similarities to what really goes on. I think it would be a mistake to extrapolate such simplistic ideas too far.
My feeling is that you are overstretching your ideas. Now there is nothing wrong with that (if confined to oneself) but to expect someone else to prove a crude explanation is right or wrong or has some worth is not really practicable. we could woffle on for ever and not prove you wrong but why should we bother ?
I observed Jupiter last night. I could only see two satellites, the other two were in line with the planet, one behind one in front, astronomers\mathematicians had accurately predicted positions based on current understanding of how light works. I do not think your ideas will add anything useful to that matter. Indeed i think there might be a danger your ideas might cock it up.
So I am personally quite happy with how science currently explains the nature of light. unfortunately I think discussing your ideas on the matter will make no difference to your opinion, but worse still from my point of view cause me to spend time on something which will help me personally not one jot.
If your ball game idea helps you to understand some aspect of science better, then it serves a purpose - but I suspect that is as far as it goes. You need to come up with something fairly conclusive showing your ideas have some real value to others. I suspect the supposed mind experiments devised by scientists (such as Einstein) caught on with other scientists because the scientists providing the mind thought ideas had already gaind considerable respect .
Best of luck from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Hi Cliff,
I must say I like your easy going attitude of late. You seem a lot less hostile than you have been to new and different ideas. Do we see a Cliff gradually drifting away from conventional theories and having more of an open mind? Seems to be the case and I don't blame you. Like you have mentioned though, good ideas make great ideas when they have evidence and applications to back them up otherwise they become part of the vast encyclopedia of disinformation that is already out there.
Regards...Q


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Manchester
Dear Quasar
I have had some concerns about some aspects of conventional cosmology for a quite a long time, in particular with respect to "inflation".
I have been interested in MOND pretty well since word got out about it.
However, Rudd's thread seems to be going no where, indeed in many respects it seems to go backwards.
Rudd seems to think his ball game idea is original thought. I was recently trying to politely point out that much the same idea has been used to explain the basics of stellar spectroscopy for many years. However, it is a simplistic idea not to be taken as the whole story by any means. This Rudd thread seems to be going round in ever increasingly eccentric ellipses.
There are many aspects of astronomy that interest me, cosmology (and particularly mind thought experiments) is one of the least important, probably SETI is one of the few subjects I find even less interesting.
Best of luck from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Maybe this picture can make my idea more clear..



Image

We all exist in the "now", while we move from time frame to time frame, we measure seconds.

Photons are created in there own "now", that the moment of action where energy is released. After there creation they will be left into the direction of past time. Matter goed furter into the future and picks up "new" energy, what we see as light.

Ah, I'm Dutch.. ;)

Verleden = past time.
Heden = now
toekomst = future


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Manchester
Dear Rudd and Quasar
As amateur astronomers we can do what astronomy and theorise exactly as we as individuals like.However, in my own view there is a lot to be said for having a wide ranging interest in as many aspects of astronomy as possible. In my opinion you are concentrating your attention on too small a field-of cosmology and getting too far ahead of yourselves in pure unsubsiated conjecture.
Of course as I have already said as amateurs we can pick and chose and do what astronomy and science we want to, but I think showing a little more interest in conventional general astronomy might help widen your horizons and perhaps you get your head out of the clouds.
Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Hello Cliff,


I like to tell you that I'm not the only person on the planet who has a differnt view on the relativity of the "lightspeed".

I always try to enlarge my horizon and like to see ideas and theory's from different views.

My big question is still..

Why are there no theory's about the lightspeed as zeriopoint of space/time?

How can we talk about a maximumspeed if there is no reference to measure this speed?

If the lightspeed is the only constant in space/time, then I would say that this would be the best reference you can have.

When we move it is not our speed in km/sec what is changing, it's only the time what will change. Always when we move we move trough space and time. I think my theory can conct time and space to eachother in a very logical way.

We only need to understand that we might need a new vision on 3 dimenional space. It's all a mather of perception..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Manchester
Dear Rudd
I am reasonably happy with my own simplistic ideas about cosmology.
For me personally, "theoretical" cosmology is only one part and not the most interesting aspect of the broader subject of astronomy.
I have no problem with the speed of light myself.
Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group